"Gutted"? It surgically removed one piece of the VRA, the piece that mandated preclearance of any change to voting laws in specific jurisdictions based upon 40-year-old data. The Party of Science should be able to comprehend the rationale for rejecting that. The entirety of the VRA apparatus, and particularly its post-facto enforcement mechanisms, remains in place. But by all means, use this as an excuse to pursue your Christmas list of fantasy "reforms."

Garet Garrett:"Gutted"? It surgically removed one piece of the VRA, the piece that mandated preclearance of any change to voting laws in specific jurisdictions based upon 40-year-old data. The Party of Science should be able to comprehend the rationale for rejecting that. The entirety of the VRA apparatus, and particularly its post-facto enforcement mechanisms, remains in place. But by all means, use this as an excuse to pursue your Christmas list of fantasy "reforms."

It's incredibly hard to bail a jurisdiction into preclearance because Section 3 of the law requires disparate treatment, i.e. intentional discrimination. When almost nobody is walking around saying "ni-BONG, ni-BONG, ni-BONG" anymore, how do you prove intentional discrimination?

Garet Garrett:"Gutted"? It surgically removed one piece of the VRA, the piece that mandated preclearance of any change to voting laws in specific jurisdictions based upon 40-year-old data. The Party of Science should be able to comprehend the rationale for rejecting that. The entirety of the VRA apparatus, and particularly its post-facto enforcement mechanisms, remains in place. But by all means, use this as an excuse to pursue your Christmas list of fantasy "reforms."

This is from the guy when when caught in a making up lies about climate change said he was doing so "to make a point".

Garet Garrett:"Gutted"? It surgically removed one piece of the VRA, the piece that mandated preclearance of any change to voting laws in specific jurisdictions based upon 40-year-old data. The Party of Science should be able to comprehend the rationale for rejecting that. The entirety of the VRA apparatus, and particularly its post-facto enforcement mechanisms, remains in place. But by all means, use this as an excuse to pursue your Christmas Holiday list of fantasy "reforms."

Serious Black:It's incredibly hard to bail a jurisdiction into preclearance because Section 3 of the law requires disparate treatment, i.e. intentional discrimination. When almost nobody is walking around saying "ni-BONG, ni-BONG, ni-BONG" anymore, how do you prove intentional discrimination?

It should be difficult. Are you comfortable interfering with the democratic process on the basis of your prejudices? Because that's the alternative.

Disparate impact analysis, which this proposal embraces, invalidates the result of the ballot on the basis of expected results, effectively displacing the franchise with expert opinion. That's very, very dangerous.

This is a sop to those on the hard left and their most trusted allies, the trial bar. It will be sold to those on the less hard left and in the center as modest reforms, and unfortunately there's never been a "reasonable reform" that those folks haven't thought to be a good idea. So unless somebody stands in the way, we'll further erode our democracy in favor of a regulatory state. Yay.

Garet Garrett:"Gutted"? It surgically removed one piece of the VRA, the piece that mandated preclearance of any change to voting laws in specific jurisdictions based upon 40-year-old data. The Party of Science should be able to comprehend the rationale for rejecting that. The entirety of the VRA apparatus, and particularly its post-facto enforcement mechanisms, remains in place. But by all means, use this as an excuse to pursue your Christmas list of fantasy "reforms."

Yes, removing the one part of the law which kept people from restricting the right to vote until after the election did in fact gut the whole thing. What's your recourse today if some court decides that your rights were denied in the last election? Do they have a do-over election? Does the guy you voted for automatically win? Or does the team that cheated keep it's guy seated in office?

And that does count as 'gutting'. Much like the surgical removal of one part of your body, the digestive tract, would count as 'gutting'.

Voting rights supporters will argue, justifiably, that the new Section 4 formula does not apply to enough states and wrongly treats voter ID laws differently than other discriminatory voting changes.

It is a bill and the final outcome could certainly be different than what we're talking about now so there are reasons to be optimistic but this is Congress we're talking about and it is a bill so the final outcome could certainly be different than what we're talking about now so there are reasons to be pessimistic.

Garet Garrett:qorkfiend: Garet Garrett: "Gutted"? It surgically removed one piece of the VRA, the piece that mandated preclearance of any change to voting laws in specific jurisdictions based upon 40-year-old data.

No, this is not correct. Being added or removed from the preclearance list was based on contemporary data.

Examples, please.

Here you go: Between 1975 and 2010, numerous local governments and the states of Arkansas and New Mexico were bailed in; several of them, such as New Mexico, have since had their bail-in status lifted

Garet Garrett:qorkfiend: Garet Garrett: "Gutted"? It surgically removed one piece of the VRA, the piece that mandated preclearance of any change to voting laws in specific jurisdictions based upon 40-year-old data.

No, this is not correct. Being added or removed from the preclearance list was based on contemporary data.

Examples, please.

Or, if you prefer, the entire list, straight from the Justice Departments website.The successful "bailout" applicant must demonstrate that during the past ten years:No test or device has been used within the jurisdiction for the purpose or with the effect of voting discrimination;All changes affecting voting have been reviewed under Section 5 prior to their implementation;No change affecting voting has been the subject of an objection by the Attorney General or the denial of a Section 5 declaratory judgment from the District of Columbia district court;There have been no adverse judgments in lawsuits alleging voting discrimination;There have been no consent decrees or agreements that resulted in the abandonment of a discriminatory voting practice;There are no pending lawsuits that allege voting discrimination; andFederal examiners have not been assigned;There have been no violations of the Constitution or federal, state or local laws with respect to voting discrimination unless the jurisdiction establishes that any such violations were trivial, were promptly corrected, and were not repeated.

It then goes on to list every jurisdiction which has been bailed out, starting in 1967 all the way up to 2012.Basically, to get lifted out of the preclearance list, just about all a city, county, or state had to do was show that in the last ten years they didn't try to restrict anyone's right to vote. NOT THE 40 YEARS YOU PULLED OUT OF YOUR ASS.

Garet Garrett:Serious Black: It's incredibly hard to bail a jurisdiction into preclearance because Section 3 of the law requires disparate treatment, i.e. intentional discrimination. When almost nobody is walking around saying "ni-BONG, ni-BONG, ni-BONG" anymore, how do you prove intentional discrimination?

It should be difficult. Are you comfortable interfering with the democratic process on the basis of your prejudices? Because that's the alternative.

Disparate impact analysis, which this proposal embraces, invalidates the result of the ballot on the basis of expected results, effectively displacing the franchise with expert opinion. That's very, very dangerous.

This is a sop to those on the hard left and their most trusted allies, the trial bar. It will be sold to those on the less hard left and in the center as modest reforms, and unfortunately there's never been a "reasonable reform" that those folks haven't thought to be a good idea. So unless somebody stands in the way, we'll further erode our democracy in favor of a regulatory state. Yay.

You sound an awful lot like the judge in Sweden that recently acquitted a guy of rape because he thought the girl yelling "no" a minimum of six times was simply behaving in a kinky manner and that he never really meant to rape the girl.

If I hypothetically pass a law that effectively bars black people from voting while letting white people vote with no hindrances, I think it is 100% irrelevant whether I intended to bar black people from voting while letting white people vote with no hindrances. I still did it. Black people's rights to vote are still being crushed into oblivion even though I never intended to do it in this counterfactual scenario.

Garet Garrett:qorkfiend: Garet Garrett: "Gutted"? It surgically removed one piece of the VRA, the piece that mandated preclearance of any change to voting laws in specific jurisdictions based upon 40-year-old data.

No, this is not correct. Being added or removed from the preclearance list was based on contemporary data.